I hate the use of diplomatic words in news

Jason Voorhees

Jason Voorhees

Say cheese
Joined
May 15, 2020
Posts
73,948
Reputation
213,239
I’ve always disliked how news outlets use overly diplomatic or passive language to describe serious incidents. Ths diggss feel like they’re trying to soften the reality of what happened saying “a train collided with a car” instead of “a driver left their car on the tracks” as if the train had a mind of its own. This kind of phrasing removes sub consciously removes accountability and distorts the truth for the sake of sounding neutrall/professional/polished.

The same goes for word “accident.” an accident implies no one is at fault but journalists use it so casually that it shifts responsibility away from human error or negligence this kind of language conditions makes readers to think of preventable tragedies as unavoidable misfortune. After reading newspapers for over a decade i know how to see through all this and come to see how agenda serving and biased some media houses can be
It's subtle but deliberate.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Ugh..
Reactions: bululu_87, Debetro, mvpisafaggot420 and 7 others
@imontheloose
 
  • +1
Reactions: gigacumster3000, Luca_., Finnishmogger and 1 other person
I’ve always disliked how news outlets use overly diplomatic or passive language to describe serious incidents. Ths diggss feel like they’re trying to soften the reality of what happened saying “a train collided with a car” instead of “a driver left their car on the tracks” as if the train had a mind of its own. This kind of phrasing removes sub consciously removes accountability and distorts the truth for the sake of sounding neutrall/professional/polished.

The same goes for word “accident.” In an accident implies no one is at fault but journalists use it so casually that it shifts responsibility away from human error or negligence this kind of language conditions makes readers to think of preventable tragedies as unavoidable misfortune. After reading newspapers for over a decade i know how to see through all this and come to see agenda serving and biased some media houses can be
It's subtle but deliberate.
 
  • +1
Reactions: gigacumster3000, Jason Voorhees and Luca_.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Jason Voorhees, Luca_. and LXR
I’ve always disliked how news outlets use overly diplomatic or passive language to describe serious incidents. Ths diggss feel like they’re trying to soften the reality of what happened saying “a train collided with a car” instead of “a driver left their car on the tracks” as if the train had a mind of its own. This kind of phrasing removes sub consciously removes accountability and distorts the truth for the sake of sounding neutrall/professional/polished.

The same goes for word “accident.” an accident implies no one is at fault but journalists use it so casually that it shifts responsibility away from human error or negligence this kind of language conditions makes readers to think of preventable tragedies as unavoidable misfortune. After reading newspapers for over a decade i know how to see through all this and come to see how agenda serving and biased some media houses can be
It's subtle but deliberate.
This is how you make the masses less angry at each other.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Jason Voorhees and Luca_.
I’ve always disliked how news outlets use overly diplomatic or passive language to describe serious incidents. Ths diggss feel like they’re trying to soften the reality of what happened saying “a train collided with a car” instead of “a driver left their car on the tracks” as if the train had a mind of its own. This kind of phrasing removes sub consciously removes accountability and distorts the truth for the sake of sounding neutrall/professional/polished.

The same goes for word “accident.” an accident implies no one is at fault but journalists use it so casually that it shifts responsibility away from human error or negligence this kind of language conditions makes readers to think of preventable tragedies as unavoidable misfortune. After reading newspapers for over a decade i know how to see through all this and come to see how agenda serving and biased some media houses can be
It's subtle but deliberate.
i mean yeah. but overall i fucking love euphemisms
 
  • +1
Reactions: Jason Voorhees
Bump
 
  • +1
Reactions: gigacumster3000
yeah that's pretty annoying, word choice does affect how things are perceived.
 

Similar threads

CorinthianLOX
Replies
27
Views
2K
gigacumster3000
gigacumster3000
D
Replies
23
Views
15K
Nihonz9
Nihonz9
D
Replies
29
Views
18K
clover
clover
thecel
Replies
76
Views
15K
commensale
C

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top